http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ob...SKBN14Q2E5

Quote:President Barack Obama said on Friday that criticism from the left wing of his own Democratic Party helped feed into the unpopularity of Obamacare, his signature healthcare reform law.

Obama has been spending part of his last two weeks in office urging supporters to speak out against plans by Republicans - who will soon control both the White House and Congress - to dismantle the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

At a town hall event with Vox Media, Obama acknowledged the politics have been stacked against his reforms, mainly blaming Republicans who he said refused to help make legislative fixes to Obamacare, which provides subsidies for private insurance to lower-income Americans who do not have healthcare plans at work.

But Obama also said Liberals like former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders had contributed to the program's unpopularity.

So in addition to it being the Republican's fault for not fixing a piece of legislation they were not allowed to craft it's also the fault of his fellow Democrats?

In Obama's America nothing is ever his fault.

13 more days. Yipppeeeee!

(01-06-2017 07:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  13 more days. Yipppeeeee!

The problem is the fact that he's really not going to go away like Carter did (for a while), like Reagan did, like GHW Bush did, like Clinton did (for a while), and like W did.

(01-06-2017 07:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 07:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  13 more days. Yipppeeeee!

The problem is the fact that he's really not going to go away like Carter did (for a while), like Reagan did, like GHW Bush did, like Clinton did (for a while), and like W did.

You're right and knowing how much the Libturd MSM loves him he'll be on the telly a lot. Good thing he can't do shite about anything governmental anymore. So much for his EOs.

I'll just keep doing what I do now, muting the SOB, (son of Obama).

(01-06-2017 07:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 07:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  13 more days. Yipppeeeee!

The problem is the fact that he's really not going to go away like Carter did (for a while), like Reagan did, like GHW Bush did, like Clinton did (for a while), and like W did.

He's just going to continue to embarrass himself with his "the buck don't stop here!" schtick.

Of course he would blame Sanders instead of blaming the real failure of the Democrats, the Clintons and all their stooges. The fact is they had to cheat just to beat a 70+ year old socialist in the primary, yet they still want to blame everyone imaginable for why they lost instead of themselves.

He got a crappy bill passed in a shady way and expected someone else to fix it. This is the thing that's supposed to be his legacy remember

Killary Clinton is what caused Obamacare to be repealed. So many Obama supporters either went to Trump, Sanders, Stein and Johnson was because Killary was a failure from the let go. He needs to stop blaming Sanders and blame the DNC and Killary for the defeat.

(01-07-2017 01:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Killary Clinton is what caused Obamacare to be repealed. So many Obama supporters either went to Trump, Sanders, Stein and Johnson was because Killary was a failure from the let go. He needs to stop blaming Sanders and blame the DNC and Killary for the defeat.

Killary was part of it, but let's be honest here - Obamacare is a sh!tbag law that has turned out to be, not the savings that he promised, but a huge sucking sound in a majority of the country's bank account.

It never addressed the supply side of health care and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that if demand is increased without increasing supply, the costs go up. It's really pretty simple.

Besides, that crappy law was never really about fixing healthcare, from the get go it was almost solely about increasing the power of the federal government. Given how badly almost any federal program is managed, is it any wonder that this is the massive failure it is??

Look, I'm not really opposed to subsidizing those with pre-existing conditions or the poor that can't afford the price tag, but let's separate out those folks from the 80%+ of people that can be in the normal insurance risk pools. Put the 15% or so into the Medicaid population instead of dragging everyone one else into a high cost money pit.

What we really need to do is put away all the petty bulls**t on this issue and figure out something that really works.

A truly universal (meaning everybody) basic level of care, augmented by as many free market options as possible, would be the framework that I would pursue. Some might call that Medicare for all, some would call it Bismarck, some would call it the Heritage plan, all of which it resembles structurally. Whatever, that seems to me to be the way to go, not least because the Bismarck systems worldwide are generally regarded as the best.

(01-07-2017 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we really need to do is put away all the petty bulls**t on this issue and figure out something that really works.

A truly universal (meaning everybody) basic level of care, augmented by as many free market options as possible, would be the framework that I would pursue. Some might call that Medicare for all, some would call it Bismarck, some would call it the Heritage plan, all of which it resembles structurally. Whatever, that seems to me to be the way to go, not least because the Bismarck systems worldwide are generally regarded as the best.

Tall order.

On the one hand, you've got the incompetent peacock (President 9-Iron), who is more invested in preserving (actually, concocting out of pure fiction) a suitable legacy. Any proposed change to our healthcare system that in any meaningful way attempts to address the catastrophe he has created will be demagogued as mean-spirited by his ignorant apologists.

On the other hand, you've got tens (and perhaps hundreds) of millions of tax-paying Americans, like me, who are so angry with what has been done over the past eight years that we are too interested in punishing the political pricks who did this to us. Your suggested framework makes some sense, Owl ......, but I am small minded enough that I want to first see my congressional Representative and both senators eat dirt for what they've foisted upon us.

On the third hand, we've got a president-elect who only knows how to insult those who disagree with him (pretty much like me, but I don't have his responsibilities of office). Bringing about any level of consensus on this topic is well beyond his ability.

So what can we do? Repeal it now. Close our ears to the cries and insults of Obama and his political and media sycophants. And hope that something halfway sensible somehow emerges from the wreckage.

(01-07-2017 09:13 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we really need to do is put away all the petty bulls**t on this issue and figure out something that really works.
A truly universal (meaning everybody) basic level of care, augmented by as many free market options as possible, would be the framework that I would pursue. Some might call that Medicare for all, some would call it Bismarck, some would call it the Heritage plan, all of which it resembles structurally. Whatever, that seems to me to be the way to go, not least because the Bismarck systems worldwide are generally regarded as the best.

Tall order.
On the one hand, you've got the incompetent peacock (President 9-Iron), who is more invested in preserving (actually, concocting out of pure fiction) a suitable legacy. Any proposed change to our healthcare system that in any meaningful way attempts to address the catastrophe he has created will be demagogued as mean-spirited by his ignorant apologists.
On the other hand, you've got tens (and perhaps hundreds) of millions of tax-paying Americans, like me, who are so angry with what has been done over the past eight years that we are too interested in punishing the political pricks who did this to us. Your suggested framework makes some sense, Owl ......, but I am small minded enough that I want to first see my congressional Representative and both senators eat dirt for what they've foisted upon us.
On the third hand, we've got a president-elect who only knows how to insult those who disagree with him (pretty much like me, but I don't have his responsibilities of office). Bringing about any level of consensus on this topic is well beyond his ability.
So what can we do? Repeal it now. Close our ears to the cries and insults of Obama and his political and media sycophants. And hope that something halfway sensible somehow emerges from the wreckage.

I think we might--emphasize might--end up being pleasantly surprised by our president-elect's ability to bring about a level of consensus on issues. He may be every bit the narcissistic egomaniac that Obama is, but the one thing he has going for him that Obama didn't is that he has actually accomplished things in a leadership role in the past. Maybe he just has good advisors who somehow overcome his foot-in-mouth disease, but however, he has at least managed to accomplish things.

I'm not overly optimistic that this will work, but I do think it's within the range of possibility.

(01-06-2017 07:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  In Obama's America nothing is ever his fault.

Yup, right out of the Socialism for Dummies handbook.

(01-07-2017 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 09:13 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we really need to do is put away all the petty bulls**t on this issue and figure out something that really works.
A truly universal (meaning everybody) basic level of care, augmented by as many free market options as possible, would be the framework that I would pursue. Some might call that Medicare for all, some would call it Bismarck, some would call it the Heritage plan, all of which it resembles structurally. Whatever, that seems to me to be the way to go, not least because the Bismarck systems worldwide are generally regarded as the best.

Tall order.
On the one hand, you've got the incompetent peacock (President 9-Iron), who is more invested in preserving (actually, concocting out of pure fiction) a suitable legacy. Any proposed change to our healthcare system that in any meaningful way attempts to address the catastrophe he has created will be demagogued as mean-spirited by his ignorant apologists.
On the other hand, you've got tens (and perhaps hundreds) of millions of tax-paying Americans, like me, who are so angry with what has been done over the past eight years that we are too interested in punishing the political pricks who did this to us. Your suggested framework makes some sense, Owl ......, but I am small minded enough that I want to first see my congressional Representative and both senators eat dirt for what they've foisted upon us.
On the third hand, we've got a president-elect who only knows how to insult those who disagree with him (pretty much like me, but I don't have his responsibilities of office). Bringing about any level of consensus on this topic is well beyond his ability.
So what can we do? Repeal it now. Close our ears to the cries and insults of Obama and his political and media sycophants. And hope that something halfway sensible somehow emerges from the wreckage.

I think we might--emphasize might--end up being pleasantly surprised by our president-elect's ability to bring about a level of consensus on issues. He may be every bit the narcissistic egomaniac that Obama is, but the one thing he has going for him that Obama didn't is that he has actually accomplished things in a leadership role in the past. Maybe he just has good advisors who somehow overcome his foot-in-mouth disease, but however, he has at least managed to accomplish things.

I'm not overly optimistic that this will work, but I do think it's within the range of possibility.

We indeed might be surprised. What I have found hopeful is that he has met with previous opponents (Romney, Kanye, Jim Brown, etc.) and they have almost universally come out of those meetings singing a different tune. Additionally, in his line of work, he has had to schmooze with all sorts of people to eventually get what he wanted.

He's a typical New York businessman - confrontational, etc., but he has years of leadership whereas Obumble had none - and we've seen that lack of leadership for 8 years.

Time will tell.

They want a single payer system like Britain's

(01-08-2017 11:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They want a single payer system like Britain's

Of course they do - because that one works so well. I find it mind boggling that these people believe the "benevolent government" has their best interests at heart and will take care of them.

(01-08-2017 11:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They want a single payer system like Britain's

Except Britain isn't single-payer. It's single-provider. Canada is single-payer.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who claim to want single-payer but don't know what it is.

(01-08-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They want a single payer system like Britain's

Except Britain isn't single-payer. It's single-provider. Canada is single-payer.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who claim to want single-payer but don't know what it is.

I'm not. Those that want it only care that it will be provided and paid for by someone else. They could care less about the workings of it - only that "it's free".

(01-08-2017 11:58 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:36 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  They want a single payer system like Britain's

Except Britain isn't single-payer. It's single-provider. Canada is single-payer.
I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who claim to want single-payer but don't know what it is.

I'm not. Those that want it only care that it will be provided and paid for by someone else. They could care less about the workings of it - only that "it's free".

I'm actually not either. They've heard a sound byte and that's all they know. Probably should have hung the sarcasm sign out on that post.

(01-07-2017 09:13 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 08:43 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we really need to do is put away all the petty bulls**t on this issue and figure out something that really works.

A truly universal (meaning everybody) basic level of care, augmented by as many free market options as possible, would be the framework that I would pursue. Some might call that Medicare for all, some would call it Bismarck, some would call it the Heritage plan, all of which it resembles structurally. Whatever, that seems to me to be the way to go, not least because the Bismarck systems worldwide are generally regarded as the best.

Tall order.

On the one hand, you've got the incompetent peacock (President 9-Iron), who is more invested in preserving (actually, concocting out of pure fiction) a suitable legacy. Any proposed change to our healthcare system that in any meaningful way attempts to address the catastrophe he has created will be demagogued as mean-spirited by his ignorant apologists.

On the other hand, you've got tens (and perhaps hundreds) of millions of tax-paying Americans, like me, who are so angry with what has been done over the past eight years that we are too interested in punishing the political pricks who did this to us. Your suggested framework makes some sense, Owl ......, but I am small minded enough that I want to first see my congressional Representative and both senators eat dirt for what they've foisted upon us.

On the third hand, we've got a president-elect who only knows how to insult those who disagree with him (pretty much like me, but I don't have his responsibilities of office). Bringing about any level of consensus on this topic is well beyond his ability.

So what can we do? Repeal it now. Close our ears to the cries and insults of Obama and his political and media sycophants. And hope that something halfway sensible somehow emerges from the wreckage.

There is an additional issue with the government providing a "basic level of care."

Who decides what is a "basic level of care?"
And what is "basic level of care?"

As examples…
Does basic care include cancer treatment?
What about an elderly patient who needs expensive drugs to slow down their cancer to prolong their life?

Does basic care include gastric bypass for the obese?

Does basic care include open-heart for a smoker who won't give up the cigs?

Does basic care include include gender reassignment?

Does basic care include treatments for infertility? Is everyone entitled to procreate?

Does basic care include joint replacements or prosthetics? Very advanced versions are available but are very very expensive. Does basic care get a hook not a robotic hand?

If the government provides everyone a "basic level of care," (however defined) those with means will be supplemental insurance giving them access to more and better.

And the left will complain about the unfairness when someone on basic level of care is only given inexpensive cancer treatment and then sent to hospice care for cancer.